ChNN on Jesus?

[Tolya M]

The church : "out of the church, no way to be saved".
Some here : "out of buddhism, no way to be saved"

But the church does not have a pramanavada where its positions are proved by logic. There is such a set of axioms that you can not really go anywhere if you are honest with yourself.

[Vasana]

What is the escence of the experience in both cases? I'm not sure it's been properly defined here yet.

What is the essence of any experience?

Huh? We were speaking about what constitutes Darshan in this particular instance, not some all encompassing exploration into the escence of all possible experience.

...many people treat visits by famous Lamas like they're darshans.

This is exactly why it is wrong to say that there is no darshan in Buddhism, when there quite clearly is. Maybe there is no darshan in Buddhdharma, but there certainly is in Buddhism.

Well i guess it's good to make that distinction.Dharma vs Dharma culture...This reminds me of the other thread[s] on whether Buddhism is polytheistic or not. On paper it might not be, but certainly many native villagers might treat and practice Dharma in that way.

[Grigoris]

Huh? We were speaking about what constitutes Darshan in this particular instance, not some all encompassing exploration into the escence of all possible experience.

Are you saying that there is a difference?

[Vasana]

Huh? We were speaking about what constitutes Darshan in this particular instance, not some all encompassing exploration into the escence of all possible experience.

Are you saying that there is a difference?

What does that have to do with the discussion and how does it serve the recent exchange?

Why revert to disccusions on the ultimate when we were evidently disscusing the particular characteristics of conventions? I can talk about what kinds of food they eat in India and what kinds of food they eat in Tibet without needing to talk about the escence of all possible food.

All i asked , was what you thought the escence of Darshan in each tradtion would be after you yourself said,

Seems to me that people are just tripping over the term rather than looking at the essence of the experience in both cases.

[Grigoris]

I answered the question already, from a relative and an ultimate position, if you are not happy with the answer, there is nothing I can really do to help you.

[Malcolm]

What is the escence of the experience in both cases? I'm not sure it's been properly defined here yet.

What is the essence of any experience?

...many people treat visits by famous Lamas like they're darshans.

This is exactly why it is wrong to say that there is no darshan in Buddhism, when there quite clearly is. Maybe there is no darshan in Buddhdharma, but there certainly is in Buddhism.

In Hinduism, darshan is a systematic religious phenomena. For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, while indeed there is the term mthong lam, darśana marga, there is no religious term which corresponds to the Hindu term darśana, in the sense used with respect to Ama and so on.

The same term has very different meanings in different schools from India. If they are conflated, nothing other than confusion results.

[Malcolm]

Taking refuge is taking the teaching of the Buddha to heart. It has nothing to do with honouring - or not - other traditions. Wake up ! There are enlighted people in every tradition, and in no tradition also, in every place, at all kind of moments !

Depends on what you mean by "enlightened." If by "enlightened" ones means having overcome basic ignorance into the nature of reality, then no, there are no enlightened people outside of Buddhadharma.

If Buddha can manifest only in the context of a "buddhist tradition", it's really nothing. So little.

Buddhas and high bodhisattvas can manifest in all kinds of ways, but the extent to which they can teach the path of liberation is dependent on whether or not conducive conditions exist for such teachings. When a supreme nirmanakāya has not manifested in the world, than those conditions do not exist. When such a supreme nirmanakāya has manifested in the world, such as Śākyamuni Buddha, only within that supreme nirmanakāya's dispensation can the path of liberation be found.

Of course, when there is no supreme nirmanakāya in the world, pratyekabuddhas can arise, but pratyekabuddhas do not teach.

If the spirit of awakening cannot be touched in other context than "buddhist tradition", it's very little...

Bodhicitta, the wish to become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings, does not even exist in Hinayāna, much less nonBuddhist traditions.

Buddha never "took refuge".

Of course he did. That is how he became a Buddha in the first place. The Buddha, Śakyamuni Buddha, followed many Buddhas in past lives by his own account.

M

[Grigoris]

Bodhicitta, the wish to become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings, does not even exist in Hinayāna, much less nonBuddhist traditions.

What about Evangelism then? I am sure Evangelists and Baptists believe they are trying to benefit sentient beings.

[Malcolm]

Bodhicitta, the wish to become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings, does not even exist in Hinayāna, much less nonBuddhist traditions.

What about Evangelism then? I am sure Evangelists and Baptists believe they are trying to benefit sentient beings.

Bodhicitta is the wish to become a buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings.

There is no wish to become a buddha in Christianity.

[Jeff H]

Bodhicitta, the wish to become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings, does not even exist in Hinayāna, much less nonBuddhist traditions.

What about Evangelism then? I am sure Evangelists and Baptists believe they are trying to benefit sentient beings.

Bodhicitta is the wish to become a buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings.

There is no wish to become a buddha in Christianity.

But they do believe they have subsumed their own selves into Jesus. They believe they speak as an instrument of him and that he represents the all-powerful, all-knowing God of all who loves all beings and wishes to have them all come into the tent of salvation.

In Buddhism we say that more qualified seekers can realize the essence from merely a word of wisdom, whereas the less qualified require much learning and practice. I have sometimes thought that the really good Christians are people of higher understanding who have realizations by merely hearing, “follow me, I’ll make you fishers of men”, whereas dullards like me need Buddhism to explain it in excruciating detail, step by step.

Both true Christians and true Buddhists are very rare, it seems to me, but both exist. I believe universal loving compassion can be attained by many means. And, while recognizing true enlightenment is a topic that’s way over my head, I think that exclusivity could only be verified by a fully realized being. For the rest of us it is just a "my teacher said; your teacher said" argument.

[Grigoris]

There is no wish to become a buddha in Christianity.

I am sure Evangelists consider themselves enlightened... Buddhists are not the only religious nutters that think they have a monopoly on liberation.

[Malcolm]

I believe universal loving compassion can be attained by many means. And, while recognizing true enlightenment is a topic that’s way over my head, I think that exclusivity could only be verified by a fully realized being.

Compassion is not a means to liberation. It is also not bodhicitta. Many people are confused about this point.

The definition and requirements for liberation are set out very clearly in sūtra, tantra, and śastra. Maybe people should spend more time studying these than wasting their time on Dharmawheel.

[Malcolm]

There is no wish to become a buddha in Christianity.

I am sure Evangelists consider themselves enlightened... Buddhists are not the only religious nutters that think they have a monopoly on liberation.

As I said above, liberation in Buddhadharma is something quite specific. If you have abandoned that definition, how can you even consider yourself a follower of Buddhadharma? Whatever liberation might be in the eyes of Christians, it certainly is not the liberation understood by those who follow Buddhadharma.

Realization comes from view. Liberation comes from realization. If your view is wrong, your realization is wrong, and liberation is out of the question for you.

Axiomatically, Christians, etc., have wrong view, thus wrong realization, etc.

[joy&peace]

In Hinduism, darshan is a systematic religious phenomena. For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, while indeed there is the term mthong lam, darśana marga, there is no religious term which corresponds to the Hindu term darśana, in the sense used with respect to Ama and so on.

The same term has very different meanings in different schools from India. If they are conflated, nothing other than confusion results.

This is true. It means one thing for Shaivas, one thing for Shaktas, another for.. Etc. It means many different things, within Hinduism. It can mean seeing the Deity, seeing the Guru, or -- seeing the sun. For instance. . .

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6stmguXBSio

(Darshan of the Sun Temple)

Yet there are similarities as well. Seeing a Buddhist / Bodhisattva is said to remove great amount of karma, and so many other benefits.

So this would apply for a guru -- but, it wouldn't have to be under any circumstances..

How wonderful would it be to meet Gelek Rimpoche on the street, for instance.

[Jyotish]

Basic argument again: even Arhats don't attain Buddha's enlightenment from mahayana perspective and here we are repeatedly trying to find buddha in other traditions. The confusion does make sense though.

The first that we learnt in our introductory class was the story of Sakyamuni as told in the Jataka. The gist is: uncountable eons ago (which means billions and billions and billions of years back) sakya muni was a prithagjan (unrealized being) too. In one of his lives, he was by the name of Sumedha rishi a being full of riddhi Siddhis. Even such an accomplished being who would be considered "enlightened" by today's many weird standards was not enlightened in Buddhist sense. When he saw buddha dipankara at that time he was so impressed he took the resolve to become a Buddha then and took Refuge and started his practice. It took his uncountable eons of dedicated practice before he became finally a Samyak sambudhha.

So to argue some dudes with no clear history of practice no clarity of teachings very little positive impact on the world are enlightened is itself not in accordance with this story of buddha whether one believes in this story or not. Secondly the word "enlightenment" has to be defined. We talk about enlightenment thinkers but are they enlightened in Buddhist sense? Or for that matter "liberation" has to be defined too. Do other traditions meet that definition?

[joy&peace]

Doors it have to be?

Hehe now I'm being like Chungpa

[Grigoris]

Axiomatically, Christians, etc., have wrong view, thus wrong realization, etc.

Would it surprise you to know that Christians et al say the exact same thing about all other competing religions?

[joy&peace]

Some do, some don't.

Some are vegetarian

[Malcolm]

Yet there are similarities as well. Seeing a Buddhist / Bodhisattva is said to remove great amount of karma, and so many other benefits.

So this would apply for a guru -- but, it wouldn't have to be under any circumstances..

And this is what the Buddha said:

• Misdeeds cannot be washed away with water,
  suffering cannot be taken out with the hand,
  I cannot give you liberation in the palm of my hand
  but I can teach you the path to liberation.

[Malcolm]

Axiomatically, Christians, etc., have wrong view, thus wrong realization, etc.

Would it surprise you to know that Christians et al say the exact same thing about all other competing religions?

Indeed, therefore, pick your view — and thus your realization and liberation— carefully. If you are interested in liberation in this lifetime, you would not want to make an error in your choice.

If you are an all-oner, you are lost before you have even begun on a path.